Joel Peter Witkin talk in Santa Fe

Wayne · Jul 22, 2005

Jorge is entirely right, and I also have no objection to his (or anyone's) work with live, voluntary human subjects. It never fails to amaze me how many people will admit publicly that they sympathize with a deranged criminal, and think them great artists. Well good for you, I hope you are proud! Without accomplices like you, JPW couldnt do what he does.

Wayne · Jul 22, 2005

Sparky said:
Well, I, for one - am so happy that his work is out there. I think it's some of the most beautiful and mortal work out there. "Staged" photography has an incredibly rich tradition - going back esp. to Niepce and the like... F.Holland Day, Muybridge. In fact, I would venture to suggest that Witkin chose this method because of it's link to early photography and to borrow semantic qualities found therein. Anyway - I think it's gorgeous, touching and brave - and it really makes AA and the crew look like fools IMHO. A genius use of large format and traditonal technologies. Yes, I love Serrano also. There will always be those very unsophisticated individuals when it comes to the issue of representation - who will think that portraying a corpse indicates a predisposition towards necrophilia. But perhaps that says much more about the person with that perception than the object of their derision. If we can have the neutered banality of Adams - why can't we have the Witkins and Serranos as well?

ROFL-Do you really think I was objecting to staged photography? You miss the point entirely. Did I say anything about necrophilia? No, and I wasnt thinking it either(although you can probably find art in that too). Its not surprising you think yourself more sophisticated than others, while you cant even comprehend the simplest things.

jjstafford · Jul 22, 2005

If JPW's use of cadavers was illegal, is there any reason the Mexican or American authorities would not use his pictures as evidence to proscecute?

Frankly, his work sickens me. If it were etchings, drawings, anything but a photographic reality, such images might have that certain distance that suggests a state of imagination, such as illustrations from Dante's Inferno. But photography like his is much about "being there" and I don't want to "be there" exploiting corpses like that.

Buyers of this work who think they are sophisticated should recognize the Being There and how it relates to their desire to own something like this, to be a part of it.

Wayne · Jul 22, 2005

jjstafford said:
If JPW's use of cadavers was illegal, is there any reason the Mexican or American authorities would not use his pictures as evidence to proscecute?

I dont know how much if any of his more loathsome work has been done in the US, where it certainly would be-and should be- illegal.

Alex Hawley · Jul 22, 2005

Sparky said:
There will always be those very unsophisticated individuals when it comes to the issue of representation - who will think that portraying a corpse indicates a predisposition towards necrophilia. But perhaps that says much more about the person with that perception than the object of their derision. If we can have the neutered banality of Adams - why can't we have the Witkins and Serranos as well?

Let me see if I understand what you said Sparky; Anyone who doesn't appreciate the likes of Witkin is unsophisticated? And what are your qualifications for being sophisticated?

livemoa · Jul 23, 2005

Ok, after rushing of a post that could be considered rude and intolerant by one poster here I would like to ask a question, if JPW's work should be illegal should Michelangalo's work with disected cadavers also be removed from view. After all, when he undertook these studies disection was a big no no.

Who else should we remove from the cannon? Hmmmm let me think, Maplethorpe is always a good one, Ariki maybe, how about Arbus, all those poor downs syndrome kids.....

And this is not to say I like JPW work, I am just a big beliver in diversity, I even know people who have Adams prints for instance, something I would not go out of my way to buy. But Weston, now there was a photographer!

Sparky · Jul 23, 2005

Dear Mr. Spanish Inquisition....

Jorge said:
Aww plueeeassee.....! I have always wondered why some people equate "sophistication" with admiring shocking subjects. Lets start first with Serrano, I am sure your acceptance of his work has to do with the "Christ in piss" picture. Well, let me tell you this was mostly a religious group hoollaboo, and his picture was taken out of context of the work he was doing at the time. Serrano was working on Santeria, religious ceremonies mainly practiced in the Caribbean islands which date back to their African origins. Santeria rituals involve the use of human fluids and religious icons, blood, semen, urine. People who got upset about the "Christ in piss" picture, mainly got upset because they looked at the title and failed to see how the photograph fit with the rest of the work. There was nothing shocking, insulting or wrong with the Serrano work.

OTOH we have JPW who decides he is going to play with human remains illegally and without consent and people say...wow, what genius! Now, I know some people will say, well he was invited by people in Mexico to do this....SO WHAT? If I invite you to come to Mexico and rob banks and kill people, does that make it right?

In any case, the only shocking idea with JPW's pictures is that he used real cadavers, if the intention was to wrestle with his inner demons, he could have had latex parts manufactured and he could have played with them whichever way he wanted to his heart content. Instead he came to Mexico and illegally used body parts to make pictures which have no journalistic value, these were meant to be "art." Every time this discussion surfaces, those of you admiring Witkin`s work always fail to answer this simple question, if there is nothing wrong with this, how come he did not do it in the US?

I have no problem with his misshapen human pictures, these people are free to do as they wish and if they want to pose for Witkin more the power to them, but there has to come a time when one has to draw a line between what is morally right and what is not, and using animals and human remains as if they were your play things IMO crosses that line. As I said, what is the big deal? Go to any S&M store, go nuts buying all the chains and stuff and then hang your dog from one of them and take pictures while it dies...you are now as much a "genius" as Witkin.

Sorry, but your idea of sophistication falls far short of mine.

Jorge, Sorry - but you do not seem to understand the term 'sophistication' as I have used it. As I have used it - and the way in which I would HOPE that any educated person WOULD use it - is, as in the OPPOSITE of shallow (practically speaking). A female artist friend of mine had to deal with just this issue with some gun-form sculptures she was making - at any rate - she drew a lot of flack for it - since there were people who decided that she condoned guns - and gun violence. These people are visually and conceptually unsophisticated. They are not able to see the difference between representation and meaning. Much as the Serrano detractors did - as you say -and as you sensitively understand the work (!). I used the Serrano reference because the problem with Serrano is the same problem that shallow people have with Witkin - right? Get my drift? I am not trying to align witkin's work with any notions of artworld elite in my use of the word 'sophisticated' nor am I trying to align myself with it. But perhaps this isn't your point (??).

For me - the power of witkin's work has to do NOT with any illegal activity or artworld reaction or anything else - simply that I thought they were STUNNINGLY beautiful images and I'd never seen any work like it before. It amazed and captivated me. Is there something WRONG with that? I should hope not. I'm sorry that you're on this moral crusade or that life has dealt you some bad experiences - that you seem to be so arbitrarily judgemental. But it seems to me there is nothing wrong with photographing cadavers. I think I might feel differently if he were killing people in order to get access to the cadavers. That's a whole other game, of course. But I cannot even begin to imagine why this is wrong. Of course it is difficult for him in the USA because we have the redneck 'moral majority' there. America IS renowned as an incredibly conservative and uptight nation - perhaps the most significant since hitler's germany (??) - so yes, there would be difficulties there. But that's got NOUGHT to do with the value of his work... it seems to me.

The problem is yours.

Sparky · Jul 23, 2005

Sophistication.

You should read Pierre Bordieu's book of the same title. It's pretty great and would probably surprise you a lot. I do not mean 'sophistication' in the shallow sense as a synonym for 'elite' or however it is that you choose to use it. See my response to Jorge's post for more elaboration. But those who I might call 'sophisticated' - are those who are able to think ABSTRACTLY - who don't get their panties in a knot because they take meaning and representation to be the same. Those are the same people who assume it's okay to bomb iraq because they were told that people with dark skin color had attacked with WTC - and iraqis have dark skin. There's some high quality logic, right? At any rate, it's okay not to get it. There are a lot of sunset photos, baby photos, pet photos and the like that I don't 'get'. To each their own. Anyway - if it offends you and you choose not to look at it. So be it. But try as you might to shut them down - there will ALWAYS be people who will attempt to ask difficult questions and who will confront us with 'challenging' subject matter. How you choose to respond to it is a mark of your unique character. Good luck.

Sparky · Jul 23, 2005

Witkin vs. Arbus

I would actually venture to say that Arbus' portfolio of the 'disabled' - is opportunistic and exploitative. I do LOVE Arbus - but there is something that does not sit morally right with me. I love looking at her images - but I always feel as though I am complicit in a questionable act. I do not have this problem with Witkin - a dead body is a dead body is a collection of chemicals and proteins. Like any other physical object. It's ridiculous this extenstive defense of the guy I have to make. It's not like I even OWN any of his books. But I do feel the work deserves a rational defense in the face of poorly constructed strifing.

Sparky · Jul 23, 2005

oops!

I meant 'sniping' - was trying to decide between 'strife', 'strafing' and 'sniping'...! Time for bed!!!

SuzanneR · Jul 23, 2005

I think to compare this country to Hitler's Germany because we don't like artist's digging up bodies, is, to say the least, a stretch. My grandmother lived in Hitler's Germany, as did my husband's parents. This country is NOTHING like Hitler's Germany.

I'd agree that JPW's work is beautifully printed, but like a lot of people I find it rather morbid, and base, and perhaps not really ethical. I also think he wants to 'shock' for no particular reason. In other words, at the end of the day the work isn't as thought provoking, for me at least, as, say, Frederick Sommers. He does some similar stuff with dead animals, and human body parts, but the work is just more elegant than JPW's.

As for Arbus' down syndrome portraits, that work was incomplete at the time of her death, and was published posthumously, I wonder if she would have treated or presented the work differently had she lived?

Jorge · Jul 23, 2005

livemoa said:
Ok, after rushing of a post that could be considered rude and intolerant by one poster here I would like to ask a question, if JPW's work should be illegal should Michelangalo's work with disected cadavers also be removed from view. After all, when he undertook these studies disection was a big no no.

Who else should we remove from the cannon? Hmmmm let me think, Maplethorpe is always a good one, Ariki maybe, how about Arbus, all those poor downs syndrome kids.....

And this is not to say I like JPW work, I am just a big beliver in diversity, I even know people who have Adams prints for instance, something I would not go out of my way to buy. But Weston, now there was a photographer!

Sorry David, but it was Da Vinci the one who did anatomical drawings from cadaver dissections, not Michelangelo. I am always surprised that people always come up with this analogy to compare with JPW work. There is a fundamental difference, for one Da Vinci knew that if he had been caught, he would have been severely punished, while he avoided being caught, he did his studies in his country and took his chances. Second, and more important it was in a quest for knowledge, not to titillate the morbid curiosity of so called art cognoscenti. If I recall correctly Da Vinci wanted to know how the human body worked so he could draw it better, subsequently his anatomical drawings were very useful in the field of medicine.

Ultimately, two wrongs do not make a right. Just because Da Vinci did it, it is not a license to do it again,If you really believe this is the same thing there is really no argument I could present to you that will make sense.

Sparky, so the problem is mine because I point out the immorality of his actions and therefore I am in a "moral crusade?" Apparently you are of the view that "sophistication" means being able to dissociate from how the art was made. Fine, lets take your point of view. Please let me know when someone in your family dies, maybe one of your parents or children so that I can go play with their cadavers without your consent, I promise I will make you some great pt/pd prints...ok?

Wayne · Jul 23, 2005

Sparky said:
J

For me - the power of witkin's work has to do NOT with any illegal activity or artworld reaction or anything else - simply that I thought they were STUNNINGLY beautiful images and I'd never seen any work like it before. It amazed and captivated me. Is there something WRONG with that? I should hope not. I'm sorry that you're on this moral crusade or that life has dealt you some bad experiences - that you seem to be so arbitrarily judgemental. But it seems to me there is nothing wrong with photographing cadavers. I think I might feel differently if he were killing people in order to get access to the cadavers. That's a whole other game, of course. But I cannot even begin to imagine why this is wrong. Of course it is difficult for him in the USA because we have the redneck 'moral majority' there. America IS renowned as an incredibly conservative and uptight nation - perhaps the most significant since hitler's germany (??) - so yes, there would be difficulties there. But that's got NOUGHT to do with the value of his work... it seems to me.The problem is yours.

Is there something wrong with that? yes there is something very wrong with finding value in some sick bastard's cavorting with cadavers without their permission. You call this arbitrarily judgemental???? BTW, I'm an agnostic bleeding heart liberal, which must be pretty hard for you to comprehend, but that doesnt make me morally bankrupt.

Answer Jorge-is it OK if we play with your loved ones corpses without your permission (or theirs) and then publish the photos? And we get to decide how to stage and arrange these photos, not you, you have no say in this. Perhaps we will arrange your dead wife, daughter, mother, or best friend with some stranger's dismembered corpse in a way that we believe to be artistic. Now dont get your panties in a bundle about these realistic photos we publish, just think of them abstractly, as you say. Well, can we? Please try not to be arbitrarily judgemental, as you say.

Even if you are so vacuously empty as to agree to this scenario, its hardly unreasonable or judgemental or indicative of extreme right wing conservatism for others to find it deplorable.

Bob Carnie · Jul 23, 2005

Wayne

Sparky did not make these images, to me his argument is our right to photograph openly without censorship. Lots of my friends find JPW work as disgusting and offensive as you do and others here, but because I view his work differently we are allowed to disagree.

Alex Hawley · Jul 23, 2005

Didn't we have nearly this exact same converstion on the LF Forum a couple months ago?

Jorge · Jul 23, 2005

Bob Carnie said:
Wayne

Sparky did not make these images, to me his argument is our right to photograph openly without censorship. Lots of my friends find JPW work as disgusting and offensive as you do and others here, but because I view his work differently we are allowed to disagree.

I disagree Bob, why is your right to photograph without censorship greater than my right to privacy and respect for my human remains? I dont find JPW work disgusting or offensive, I find it banal and appealing to the basest morbid curiosity. I have seen the pictures and my first reaction, once I got past the idea he was using real cadavers was "so what?"

Now, without making this a digital v classic debate, is it any wonder that people doing digital think we are only concerned about the process when the best thing many have said about JPW's work in this forum is "they are very well printed?"

I am always surprised that the basic concept of self censorship in behalf of respect for human remains and basic human decency is such a hard concept for some of you to grasp just because you have a "right" to photograph. Now, I would not have a problem with JPW's work if he had contacted the families and had obtained permission to do what he did, or at least obtain after the fact permission once the remains had been claimed. But you know why he did not? Because he knew very well no family would have stood for it and allow him to do it.

It is all well and good for you to say you have a "right" to photograph without censorship, yet you and many others here always refrain from answering the two simple questions I make when this topic surfaces. 1- Why didnt he do it in the US? and 2- How would you feel if it was your mother, father, wife or daughter that had been played with and used as props?

Wayne · Jul 23, 2005

Alex Hawley said:
Didn't we have nearly this exact same converstion on the LF Forum a couple months ago?

Here's an interesting exercise for you Alex-go search the lf archives and see if you can find it.

Bob Carnie · Jul 23, 2005

Jorge
The image I pointed out earlier in the thread is not ( and I may be corrected) a cadaver. The images from the morgue are very disturbing and I am not defending them. But , I was only made aware of his work through a show that was on at Tator Alexander Gallery here in Toronto years ago (which by the way had enourmous crowds and the Bone House book which was given to me years ago by a friend. This show and his book is in the open and not being shut down.
I agree , that I would not want my family to be part of a series depicted this way but from viewing his work, this series is by far not the total of his work.
As earlier pointed out in one of my first posts on this thread, I was obliged to view a 30 minute film in my first year of photo college, which I can assure you was way beyond any images in Bone House. Quite a few people had to run out of the viewing room because of the disturbing nature.
This was 1973, I had never in my short life seen anything like this and it profoundly changed my viewpoint of the human race. I do not equate this to be the same thing as JPW work but his work is out there and maybe I do have a morbid curiosity to occasionally look at his work.
When viewing a large series of work by one of my clients I was privy to thousands of sheets of contacts that he had done over a very long period of time . We were printing a show on India. The title was Heaven and Hell and included in all of this work were images of some very poor life conditions.
There were a whole series of images of Dwarves that would pose for the camera for a fee and would contort there bodies to all sorts of wierd angles.
I asked the photographer why not include these shots, His response was it was too easy and the shock value was not what he wanted to with his work and that he wished he never wasted any time on this series.
JPW work with the cadavers is in my mind this very thing * a shock to the senses* which probably is why people react so strongly to his work.
I don't think it is up to me to decide JPW fate , I came on to his work, way after these images were shot, printed , displayed worldwide and books published. I just happen to find this guys work interesting. * not meaning I agree with his methods or subject matter* just interesting and sometimes amusing as pointed out by the *chance of loss testicle or face crush*

jjstafford · Jul 23, 2005

Sparky said:
[...] A female artist friend of mine had to deal with just this issue with some gun-form sculptures she was making - at any rate - she drew a lot of flack for it - since there were people who decided that she condoned guns - and gun violence.

That's a poor example for the case at hand. The objects in question were sculptures "of" guns, not guns used in actual practice. I think a better comparison would be the artist who armed his audience and had them shoot him. He was asking the audience to partipate. They did.

Similarly, the pictures in question are of dead people and parts of them. The images in this case require the real thing to be in front of the lens. By buying into his art, you are like the audience in the example above, you are becoming a part of the act, condoning it, and loving every bit of it.

Now we wil find if that is too sophisticated a posit for you to handle.

Sparky said:
[...] These people are visually and conceptually unsophisticated. They are not able to see the difference between representation and meaning.

I assert that your first sentence is a red herring, in your second you clearly miss the sophistication of the medium itself and were taken in by presuming it was just a representation. It may have been a representation of something that rang in your imagination but It was ALSO the real thing, the thing itself, and you bought into it.

Sparky said:
[...] But it seems to me there is nothing wrong with photographing cadavers. [...]

So APUG could set up a small fund to ship yours to Mexico for some kind of 'sophisticated' photographic happening.

Wayne · Jul 23, 2005

Bob Carnie said:
Wayne

Sparky did not make these images, to me his argument is our right to photograph openly without censorship. Lots of my friends find JPW work as disgusting and offensive as you do and others here, but because I view his work differently we are allowed to disagree.

This has nothing to do with censorship, its about the (mis)treatment of the dead and the lack of respect for them, and the living who have to see it. Its really appalling how people can think this is somehow about Witkin's "artistic" rights and ignore the rest. Ohh, poor JPW, I feel so sorry for him. Give me a break! I dont care if Sparky made these images-as I said, and as jj said, he and his other advocates are condoning it. I condemn them for doing so just like I would condemn anyone condoning and thereby enabling/encouraging other atrocious acts.

.

Sparky · Jul 23, 2005

all i see is prejudice here.

Look, folks. I really do appreciate the time you've taken to consider this thread and your responses, if not terribly well reasoned ones - to it. I am sorry that I got your feathers ruffled. All I'm saying is that I find the work particularly beautiful. Is it morbid? of course. That is part of it. What I really love about his work is that it is SO incredibly disturbing - yet beautiful.That is what I think gives his work the power it has. And it asks disturbing questions about the nature of mortality. I don't know if that would be possible without doing things the way he does them - arranging cadavers, etc...

At any rate - I am becoming very frustrated having my comments taken out of context. It's getting a little bit silly. The veiled threats are starting to roll in... sorry to say something you don't want to hear. Please try to keep an open mind about others' opinions please! I can respect and understand your discomfort with seeing the human corpse. It's definitely 'difficult' territory at best. I, myself, would not be comfortable, for those and other reasons - in witkin's place. However - I am very glad that someone like witkin exists and that he can ask these questions and make us feel uncomfortable. This is the hallmark of good art, IMO. At any rate - I am very surprised at the behaviour being exhibited on this board. Somewhat reminiscent of "Lord of the Flies".

Please remember for the future:
Arguments are not won with physical threat. They are won with knowledge and reason. If you want to take the time to come up with a rational response to some of my comments - then I will be happy to take the time to consider them.

Thanks.

Alex Hawley · Jul 23, 2005

Wayne said:
Here's an interesting exercise for you Alex-go search the lf archives and see if you can find it.

Wayne, I searched for a while with no joy, then remembered that the thread was removed because of the row it caused. That's precisely what I didn't want to see happen here.

Jorge · Jul 23, 2005

Look, folks. I really do appreciate the time you've taken to consider this thread and your responses, if not terribly well reasoned ones -

LOL....boy you are a gem, we the unsophisticated unable to reason salute you!

:rolleyes:

Sparky · Jul 23, 2005

One last thing...

I doubt very much that Witkin 'enjoys' working with the cadavers. Who WOULD or COULD? I do get the feeling that you people seem to think this is something he does because he gets some sort of personal thrill out of.

jjstafford · Jul 23, 2005

Sparky said:
I doubt very much that Witkin 'enjoys' working with the cadavers. Who WOULD or COULD? I do get the feeling that you people seem to think this is something he does because he gets some sort of personal thrill out of.

I would bet he's thrilled for getting $8,000US a print.

It doesn't matter how Witkin felt during the making of the photograph, any more than it matters how Ansel Adams felt, or how I felt, or how you feel when you make yours. Get it?

What is pertient in the making of the art in question is the substative fact that this photography (like most) concerns The Thing Itself. He was there, the subjects were there and the photographer manipulated the cadevers in no small way to make the images. You cannot separate that from the outcome with any level of pseudo-sophisticated machinations. This position is one of the few fundamental, singluar qualities of photography.

You support the work because it delights you in an ambigous way you cannot explain despite your self-proclaimed sophistication. That could be called a Fetish. It does not remove the very fact that it was done with cadavers, possibly illegally, or any other fact.

Now who threatened you and what did they write, or are you trying to raise your status by casting yourself as a victim?

Joel Peter Witkin talk in Santa Fe

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency